User talk:Señor action
yo Lancer1289 why did you undo my quarian edit? how does it make sense to you that having one child per couple maintains a steady population? if you have 4 males and 4 females in generation 1 and only one child per couple the second generation will have a total of 4, not 8. portrayed graphically: FIRST GENERATION ♂+♀ ♂+♀ ♂+♀ ♂+♀ SECOND GENERATION ♂+♀ ♂+♀ why do you think having 50% less people every generation is zero population change? Quarian Edit War Please stop inserting speculation into the Quarian page. If you have an idea, you should post a blog about it instead of edit warring and undoing edits. --The Milkman | I always . 00:51, February 5, 2012 (UTC) Edit Warring First, it is becoming quite apparent that you don't have a handle on Mass Effect Lore, because if you did, then this pointless edit war wouldn't have happened. Second, to the actual cause of this breach of policy. It is stated by Tali in Mass Effect that quarian parents cannot have more than one child. This is to control their population in the very limited space the Migrant Fleet offers. It doesn’t matter whether or not you agree with it, the point is that your edit is not canon, and is therefore incorrect. If you had a handle on the Lore of Mass Effect, then you wouldn't have asked, "yo Lancer1289 why did you undo my quarian edit?" Because the answer to that would be very apparent. However, this is all beside the point. The point is that you are now edit warring, and that is a bannable offense. There is actually little point in discussing this because unless BioWare rewrote canon somewhere, quarian parents are only permitted one child. Therefore, stop inserting incorrect information into articles. If it continues to happen, then you will be banned. Lancer1289 00:59, February 5, 2012 (UTC) You have now been blocked from editing for two weeks for Edit Warring. Everyone I have said above is still valid, except the last sentence. The point it you were warned in at least two different places where to possible take it to an alternate site, but you refused, and now you have to deal with the consequences of your actions. If you wish to come back after the block is up, then that is acceptable, but do not repeat the actions that got you blocked in the first place. You made edits counter to canon, and I should again point out that it is irrelevant whether or not you agree with it, and that is not permitted. Lancer1289 01:04, February 5, 2012 (UTC) :Come on Lancer don't you think thats a litte harsh, no one warned him he could get blocked, and you just said "if it continues you will be banned", it didn't continue.--Legionwrex 01:09, February 5, 2012 (UTC) :why would it matter weather tali said it it not (i do think i remember her saying that too) it's mathematically incorrect, 2>1 in other words 1<2 in other words two is bigger than one. lancer, you said "it doesn't matter wether you agree with it or not" it's not that i don't agree with it, mathematics doesn't agree with it. just because it came from the developer doesn't make it absolute, the developers are also humans that make mistakes, that was obviously a slipup on their part. and i don't understand why you can't see that TWO people having ONE child means a population decline every generation of half. Because that's your own personal research. It may not necessarily be a slip-up, there are other explanations. --The Milkman | I always . 01:44, February 5, 2012 (UTC) :And again that doesn't matter because canon says that quarians are allowed one child, and that is what the article says what it does. Some how it seems to work out because Tali said that the restriction hasn't been lifted, nor have extreme actions been taken in quite some time. It doesn't matter what you do, what you say in this case. Canon says one, so the article says one. End of story. Lancer1289 02:05, February 5, 2012 (UTC) :.... yes I it IS my personal, and a lot of other people's, research that 2 and one are not equal. but, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe im not seeing something, gimme a situation in which the article's statement would make sense in maintaining a steady population ::And again it is irreleavnt. Canon says one, so it stays as one, regardless of what else is said. Lancer1289 02:25, February 5, 2012 (UTC) Well, you can't really refute cannon, even with solid mathematics. If you have solid evidence, it may be worth mentioning in a talk page about putting it in the trivia section. Whether it makes sense or not, it is stated at fact in the Mass Effect lore. They can lift the ban on reproduction, and the negative population growth may simply be to offset any that break the law, and non-Flatila arrivals. --The Milkman | I always . 02:26, February 5, 2012 (UTC) ::wait wait wait. something just came to mind, didn't a novel called "mass effect: deception" come out recently? a novel that MANY people have touted as being filled with errors, as in, counters to the mass effect universe told so far. while i'm not certain, i would believe you two feel similar to the guy that wrote the open letter to bioware regarding the novel since you haven't made attempts at removing it . so tell me why all of you are so up in arms about a novel that, last i checked, was APPROVED for release by bioware, was selected for production by bioware, and am pretty sure was read and allowed to be printed millions of times. why do you question the company that made the story? you two tell me that if bioware said one, it stays one. well bioware also allowed all the changes deception is accused of having. why do you insist on shutting me up about a BIOWARE mistake when you two HAVE MADE STATEMENTS to bioware about MAKING mistakes? Señor action 10:26 PM, February 4, 2012 (EST) :::Now it is very apparent that you have very little handle on what is going on in Mass Effect lore, or recent events. The errors being pointed out there ran counter to established canon. Making this completely different circumstances. :::I don't know what is so hard to grasp here, but this it is BioWare's universe and so they can do what they want with it. Mass Effect Technology doesn't make sense, but it still exists there. What BioWare says goes in this universe, and if they say that the quarians can sustain that population, then they can. Next time, don't attempt to compare two completely different circumstances. Lancer1289 03:39, February 5, 2012 (UTC) : dude how can you type complete contradictions and not see this?! if going by what you said this is bioware's universe and they can do what they want with it (read you post YOU wrote that) than how is them producing deception and changing story a problem? if its as you say THEIR universe and they can do what THEY want with it. why is it a problem when they exercise that power and change the story in deception? why do you have a problem with deception's mistakes but not with Tali's mistake? :everyone knows mass effect's technology doesnt make sense, thats why it's called a science fiction game. but that doesnt mean that mass effect can change the well known fact that the color red looks like this and green looks like this and that having less offspring per generation doesn't lower population :you have one of the most interesting ideas about mathematics and really, just comprehension in general, I've ever come across man, for real ::::to any administrator in here, because i just have to get this sorted out. i've been having a heated disagreement with both Lancer1289 and User:The-Milkman and i'd like to get something out there to see if all of you agree with their standpoint. ::::let's take this hypothetical codex passage: "SOL: the home stra of earth has seen many changes since to it's surroundings since the beginning of humanity's use of mass effect drives..." what both lancer and milkman seem to be telling me is that none of you would change "stra" to "star" being that it IS an obvious mistake in bioware's part, and you would include the code with the mistake in the codex entries articles? Language Policy Note that we do in fact have a Language Policy here. We do not tolerate violations of it in any regard. We have no use for crude/inappropriate language here. Further violations of this policy will lead to a ban. Lancer1289 20:59, February 21, 2012 (UTC) and what did i say? Señor action 21:01, February 21, 2012 (UTC) :"Damn" is classified as crude language and isn't tolerated. Do not breach the policy again or it will result in a ban. Lancer1289 21:03, February 21, 2012 (UTC) :sure uh huh. Señor action 21:09, February 21, 2012 (UTC) ::It doesn't matter whether or nor you agree with it. You edit here, so you are bound to follow site policies. Lancer1289 21:19, February 21, 2012 (UTC) :::nah thats fine watever i wont use it. i havent met anybody ever since i moved to the USA who doesnt use the word (and that's since 6th grade) but whatever. do you have the link to the language section of the policies by any chance? Señor action 21:30, February 21, 2012 (UTC) ::::There is no section out lining what counts as a "crude word" and "Damn" is generally considered either not bad language or extremely mild depending on place to place. There is also the line in the Language policy that states "There is some leeway in Talk pages and in discussion between users". I don't think the word Señor action used really count as violating the policy given this. Phalanx-a-pedian 21:38, February 21, 2012 (UTC) :::::Actually Spart says it is not allowed, so it isn't allowed. Bottom line, if it is not "G" rated, then do not say it. Lancer1289 21:41, February 21, 2012 (UTC) :::::Can you like to where this is please? If the Language policy is going to be so strict then clear definitions are needed. That doesn't change the fact that it was on a talk page which according to the bit I quoted should mean that its allowed to pass, if that word's not covered by the leeway then what is? Phalanx-a-pedian 21:46, February 21, 2012 (UTC) :who's spart? im assuming what phalanx says is true here, and if it is, you have no authority to restrain me from saying the word, we as far as i can remember are discussing an "M" rated game, so officially no one under 17 is ideally supposed to be here. stop me if im wrong there. hey phalanx could you point me to where you read that? you too lancer. Señor action 21:49, February 21, 2012 (UTC) I'm Spart. The site bureaucrat. And Phalanx-a-pedian is incorrect. His statement is a misinterpretation of site policy, nothing more. SpartHawg948 21:51, February 21, 2012 (UTC) :It's in the link that Lancer posted at the very start of this discussion. Spart, could you please explain how it was intended to be interpreted? Reading that line the only thing I can think of it meaning is that on talk pages and discussions between users mild use of language is permitted. If that's not what it means then I suggest the section be re-written. Phalanx-a-pedian 21:57, February 21, 2012 (UTC) alright so maybe you can point me to the section where saying damn is an offense, and if it is allow me to say it isn't a very wide-eyed policy, 'least not for this specific wiki, as like i said this is a mature game, where officially only people old enough to drive are supposed to be, and and becasue of that are old enough to use that "curse"word. k thanks phalanx, missed it for some reason. Señor action 22:00, February 21, 2012 (UTC) yeah phalanx is right, im reading it with the same interpretation as him/her if i were to talk to some stranger face-to-face i would certantly not have any restraints on using damn. unless i was speaking to a little boy/girl, in which case i wouldn't unless he would first. Señor action 22:03, February 21, 2012 (UTC) ::Well, in order to get a full measure of site policy, you need to read all the policies, not just one. It's not a long page, so it's not like I'm expecting you to read the United States Code or anything. And, under the section on banning, "Crude or offensive language" is listed as grounds for banning. As such, the policy you site clearly cannot be condoning profanity on talk pages, as profanity is listed as a grounds for banning, with no exceptions provided. The "leeway" mentioned regards non-profane language that could be regarded as insulting. ::Señor action, there is no place where a list of specific words can be found. Such a list would be contradictory to its very purpose, and would be non-inclusive in the extreme. Seriously, how would it make any sense to say "These are the words you cannot say. (We can say them here though.)" It wouldn't make any sense. As for the "It's an M-rated game" excuse, I can't begin to describe how tiresome that one is. People also insult each other left and right in the game. Yet I don't see you calling for that to be allowed. Phalanx is, in point of fact, not right. And, as you have been asked to do repeatedly already, I will ask that you please abide by site policy now that you have been made aware of it. Failure to do so could result in further banning. SpartHawg948 22:04, February 21, 2012 (UTC) :i'm not gonna say i studied the section, but i read its lenght paying more attention to things that had to do with language, and i still don't see where saying things like "damn" or "hell" is breaking policy, specially taking into consideration the leeway sentence, that it may offend one person and he reports me is fine, he/she has a right to under those policies, but to threaten me with a ban for not using a word that realistically is used QUITE OFTEN by many people, and is something that to me those policies allow since it isn't anything extremely vulgar or demeaning is, in my, view, an overreach of one's authority. you make absolute sense in your statement about the "not say list", but a more clear line should be drawn, something that would make sense to me would be "if you wouldn't hear it in Power Rangers, don't say it here" because placing a sentence about talking to a stranger face-to-face can mean many levels of offensiveness to many people. well sir that it's tiresome and that it's true and accurate are 2 different things. i haven't made a comment on someone insulting someone else in here because i havent seen anything that merits it. then again im not s picky about what offending someone is since i come from a country where "offense" means something that was meant to start a fight, or a physical attack, words used in a heated debate between 2 respectful people are not offensive, like damned or hell. and while im not saying i won't abide by them, please understand that i amy not ALWAYS do it, since the way of living in my country is part of me and i can't just turn it off, im mature enough to not disrespect someone racialy, but i guess we can call them "pg-13 words" will, on ocassion, slip. Señor action 22:24, February 21, 2012 (UTC) ::In response to Spat's last comment; I did read that section and yet still interpreted the line as meaning what I expressed to be my understanding. I do think a re-write is in order as in it's current form it is misguiding. I think Señor action was saying that I was right that my interpenetration is how the policy reads. Without getting into the hole argument over people complaining about the sites strict language policy, I do feel that the use of the word in question, at the very least on talk pages should be allowed at least in limitation. Lancer said "Bottom line, if it is not "G" rated, then do not say it.", but this word is used in several films rated G. According to tvtropes.org 'Airport', 'Star Trek: The Motion Picture' and 'Gone with the Wind'. This word should not be considered "curde". Phalanx-a-pedian 22:27, February 21, 2012 (UTC) Again though, I must point out that your interpretation is incorrect. As an admin who was here when the policy was drafted, I can assure you of this. Señor action, again I can only say that of course you don't see anything saying you can't say those particular words. I went over this. Remember the part where I said it didn't make sense to list exact words? I do. You even mentioned it in your comment. I know these words are used QUITE OFTEN. I use them QUITE OFTEN. I also know when to not use them. And while you may think the policies allow them, I am flat-out telling you, as the site bureaucrat that the policy does not mean what you insist it does. Occasional slips are one thing, but you have repeatedly violated the site language policy despite multiple requests to refrain from doing so. Even in your last comment, after my warning to avoid doing so, you violated the language policy. As such, further action will be taken. SpartHawg948 22:34, February 21, 2012 (UTC) :I understand what you are saying, I simply think that it needs re-worded because it is misleading in its current form and I think that the word in question (I take it from the fact that Señor action has been banned that I cant use it even as an example) should not be treated as offensive/crude/profane ext if it's permitted even in G rated films and used as if it were not offensive/crude/profane by the vast majority of society. In my experiences the only times people avoid using is when in the presence of extremely young children. Phalanx-a-pedian 22:45, February 21, 2012 (UTC) :You are more than welcome to propose a change to the current policy, or a revision of the current wording. However, until such time as the policy is amended, the current policy will be enforced. With the current language policy, we're simply trying to make the site as accessible as possible to as broad a range of people as possible, within reason. The thinking was that, when faced with the profanity issue, it's easier to enforce a policy that restricts profanity and to ask people who use it commonly (such as myself) to tone it down, than it is to just tell people who may object to profane language to "suck it up and deal with it or don't visit the wiki". We don't want to exclude anyone, so we were shooting for the most inclusive policy that was feasible. If this doesn't work for some editors, we're more than willing to consider amending policies. SpartHawg948 00:43, February 22, 2012 (UTC) Señor action, I don't know what you want me to do. It would seem you are in violation of the language policy. Honestly, I don't particularly agree with it, but I do understand its purpose. I suggest that simply adhere to the policies of MEWiki whilst you are here. --The Milkman | I always . 05:38, February 22, 2012 (UTC)